4 ms·
What I wrote doesn't imply at all that Musk may be on it, or that the person in the call center even exists. What I claim is that with the elements I have, it l
by brohee 7y ago
What I wrote doesn't imply at all that Musk may be on it, or that the person in the call center even exists. What I claim is that with the elements I have, it looks like the head of security maliciously set the cops on the whistle blower.
It would have been easy for Tesla to release a recording of the call, and if it exists the malicious call could be traced.
He could easily have been shot, police being what it is in the US...
- Voloskaya 7y ago> or that the person in the call center even exists This person does exists, as you can see in the report that he/she was interviewed by a police officer. So this person would need to be on it too...
- brohee 7y agoWas there ever any attempt to trace the obviously malicious call ? Someone ought to do 20 years for that one (https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/03/man-behind-fatal-swatting-gets-20-years/ https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/03/man-behind-fatal-swattin...)
- Voloskaya 7y agoYou would have to prove intent as is the case in the story above. If the person calling had some legitimate fear of him actually shooting up the place they were justified in making a warning call even if it wasn't based on any solid proof (although the call should have been to the police and not to Tesla).